Managing Acid Drainage at Mine Sites

1
A B S T R A C T
Coming to Terms with Acid Drainage
Nigel Murphy, Dr Jeff Taylor, Michael Leake
Earth Systems Pty Ltd1
Acid drainage at mine sites usually develops when naturally occurring iron-sulphide
minerals are exposed to air during the dewatering and mining process. In the presence
of air and water, the sulphides decompose to release sulphuric acid and soluble metals.
Apart from its corrosive impact on equipment and infrastructure, acid drainage can
damage aquatic ecosystems and degrade water quality. Unless correctly addressed,
acid drainage will often lead to long term and costly remediation.
Whilst there have been many advances in the early recognition and mitigation of acid
drainage, many mine sites around the world still continue to underestimate its likelihood
and severity. A recent report by the Australian Government (Harries, 1997) indicated
that rehabilitation costs for acid drainage affected sites are likely to be in excess of
A$100,000 per hectare, excluding the cost of treating water from mine workings.
Currently, best practice environmental management of sulphidic mine wastes involves
integration of acid drainage prevention, minimisation and control into the mining
process. It can be summarised as the early characterisation and classification of the
acid generating potential of these materials, development of strategies to minimise the
oxidation of sulphides, and where acid drainage formation is unavoidable, the
implementation of suitable long term control and treatment technologies. In almost all
circumstances, resources spent on prevention and minimisation of acid drainage are
returned many fold through lower control and treatment costs.
Based on the experiences of mine sites throughout the world, control and management
solutions for acid drainage are often site specific taking into account environmental risk,
economics, regulatory regime, climate, terrain, local natural resources and site logistics.
Using case studies from the Asia-Pacific, this paper reviews and evaluates a range of
established techniques, recent advances and new concepts developed for the control
and management of acid drainage from mine sites. It identifies the strengths and
weaknesses of different approaches and highlights where each can be most cost
effectively and successfully used. It also reviews some areas of continuing research
into cost-effective techniques for minimising or avoiding acid drainage formation,
techniques that offer hope for expanding the future options of environmental managers.
1
Earth Systems Pty Ltd, Suite 209, 1 Princess St, Kew, Victoria, Australia 3101. Tel: 61 3 9205 9515; Fax: 61 3 9205 9519;
Email: enviro@earthsystems.com.au

2
1.0 Background to Acid Generation and Metal Mobilisation
Acid drainage is a low pH, iron and sulphate-bearing water usually formed when rocks
containing sulphide minerals (eg. pyrite, pyrrhotite etc) are exposed to the atmosphere or an
oxidising environment, and subsequently leached by water. Acid drainage is a major issue
affecting the metal mining and coal industry throughout the world. Many old mining sites have
a legacy of acid drainage long after the completion of mining. The major sources of acid
drainage at mine sites and the associated minimisation, control and treatment techniques are
summarised in Figure 1.
The production of acid via iron sulphide (eg pyrite) oxidation can be represented by the
following reaction:
FeS2 + 3.75 O2 + 3.5 H2O = Fe(OH)3 (orange precipitate) + 2 SO4
2-
+ 4 H+
(1)
(Iron sulphide + Oxygen + Water = Ferric Hydroxide + Aqueous sulphuric acid)
The following more detailed reactions demonstrate the key steps in the acid forming process,
and highlight the importance of ferric hydroxide (Fe(OH)3) precipitation in the production of
acidity:
FeS2 + 3.5 O2 + H2O = Fe2+
+ 2 SO4
2-
+ 2 H+
(2)
Pyrite is exposed to air and decomposes into water soluble components; acid is produced.
Fe2+
+ 0.25 O2 + H+
= Fe3+
+ 0.5 H2O (3)
The relatively reduced water soluble components are further oxidised; acid is consumed.
Fe3+
+ 3 H2O = Fe(OH)3 (orange precipitate) + 3 H+
(4)
The formation of ferric iron in water results in the precipitation of ferric hydroxide precipitate;
acid is produced.
Ferric hydroxide will only precipitate from water (above pH 3.3) after it has been sufficiently
aerated / oxidised to facilitate the conversion of soluble ferrous iron to soluble ferric iron. As
can be seen from reaction (4), this process is a key acid producing stage. Once sulphides have
been oxidised, it is extremely difficult to avoid ferric hydroxide precipitation.
With the formation of soluble ferric iron (Fe3+
) in the presence of fresh iron sulphide, further
sulphide oxidation is accelerated, as represented in the following reaction:
FeS2 + 14 Fe3+
+ 8 H2O = 15 Fe2+
+ 2 SO4
2-
+ 16 H+
(5)
Iron sulphides in geologic materials that are located below the water table will remain
essentially stable, since the potential for oxidation is limited2
. However, where sulphidic
materials are exposed to oxidising conditions (air) the iron sulphides will react and water can
move the reaction products (eg. iron and sulphate) into surface water and groundwater. As the
acid water migrates, it further reacts with other minerals and dissolves a broader range of
metals.
Whilst pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration (H+
in reactions (2) to (5)), “acidity” is a
measure of both hydrogen ion concentration and mineral (or latent) acidity. Mineral or latent
acidity includes the concentration of hydrogen ions that could potentially be generated by the
2
The concentration of dissolved oxygen in natural waters is approximately 25,000 times lower than
found in the atmosphere.

3
precipitation of various metal hydroxides from any given solution when titrated to a specific pH
(eg. such as for ferric hydroxide as shown in reaction (4) above). Commonly acid drainage
solutions contain iron, aluminium, manganese, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium and other metals.
Total Acidity (ie. existing + latent) is measured in a laboratory by thoroughly oxidising a water
sample, and titrating it to a specific pH (eg. commonly 8.3). Provided in units of mg/l CaCO3,
this measurement quantifies the ideal neutralisation requirements of the water sample to the
specified pH.
One thousand tonnes of material containing 0.5% sulphur as pyrite which completely oxidises
will require approximately 16 tonnes of CaCO3 (used efficiently) to neutralise the sulphuric acid
generated.
1.1 What Problems are Created by Acid Drainage?
Acid drainage can have extreme impacts on the ecology of streams, affecting the beneficial use
of waterways downstream of mining operations. Acid conditions can:
• mobilise (bring into solution) metals to levels injurious to aquatic ecosystems, riparian
communities and possibly human health (eg. zinc, cadmium, aluminium, copper);
• limit the downstream beneficial uses of the receiving water (eg. stock, recreation, fishing,
aquaculture, irrigation);
• alter important life supporting balances in water chemistry (eg. bicarbonate buffering
system);
• lead to the development of chemical precipitates (eg. ferric hydroxide, aluminium
hydroxide...etc) that can smother aquatic habitat and reduce light penetration;
• impact on groundwater quality;
• lead to the installation of expensive control, treatment and rehabilitation programs;
• create long term environmental liabilities; and
• limit the reuse of mine site water and exacerbate the corrosion of site infrastructure and
equipment.
Acid drainage can also cause revegetation and rehabilitation difficulties. Acidity in soils can
lead to significant excesses and deficiencies of key elements for plant growth and difficulties in
stabilising mine wastes. Acid conditions in soils are at best a significant limitation on the
vegetation types that can be used for rehabilitation and at worst the cause of a failed
rehabilitation programme.
A recent study assessing acid mine drainage in Australia (Harries, 1997) conservatively
estimated that over 15 years, the total cost of managing potentially acid generating mine
wastes from current mines is A$ 900 million. The cost of rehabilitating the Rum Jungle mine
site, a relatively small mine in the Northern Territory, from funds provided by the Australian
Government was A$ 18.6 million (Harries, 1997). Detailed studies of the Mount Lyell mining
area in Tasmania estimate expenditure exceeding A$ 10 million in capital costs and A$ 2
million in yearly operating costs to neutralise all acid drainage sources from the mine area
(Koehnken, 1997).
Typical costs for rehabilitating potentially acid generating wastes at historic abandoned mine
sites has been estimated as being in excess of $100,000 per ha (Harries, 1997). These costs

4
do not include acid drainage treatment costs of mine workings. In contrast, the cost of
managing acid drainage at existing mine sites is significantly less than this figure, indicating that
site recognition and on-going management of acid drainage is an important long term cost
saving.
Experience has shown that acid drainage, if not properly managed has the potential to be a
long term liability for mine operators, regulators and the community.
1.2 Factors Influencing Acid Drainage from Sulphides
The following factors can enhance the production of acid drainage from iron sulphides:
• the ready availability of oxygen and water;
• physical characteristics of geologic materials which encourage rapid oxidation (ie. high
surface area / small grainsize iron sulphides);
• water with a low pH;
• elevated water temperatures;
• high soluble Fe3+
/Fe2+
ratios;
• the presence of micro-organisms (bacteria, eg. Thiobacillus thiooxidans and T. ferrooxidans)
which can act as a catalyst by utilising iron sulphide as an energy source, thereby oxidising
the sulphide mineral;
• the absence of neutralising materials (eg. calcium carbonate); and
• warm, wet climates.
2.0 Best Practice Management and Control of Acid Drainage
Best practice management of acid drainage is routinely pre-emptive and can usually be
summarised by the following:
• Understanding the site mechanisms for acid generation, predicting the acid generating
potential and incorporating this information into mine design and management (eg. location
of waste dumps, blending of wastes, dump design and management procedures, water
management plans...etc).
• Development of suitable minimisation and control strategies.
• Monitoring to seek warning signs of the early development of acid drainage, and later to
quantify the effectiveness of minimisation and control strategies.
• Treatment where minimisation and control strategies are not totally effective or where costs
of treatment are less than the costs of minimisation and control (refer to Figures 1& 2).

5
More specific detail on measures to implement best practice management of acid drainage
follow.
2.1 Identification and Prediction of Acid Drainage
Accurate prediction of acid drainage requires a knowledge of the mineralogy and chemistry of
geologic materials, site hydrology and the distribution of key rock types. It is important to
understand which lithologies are acid generating, non-acid generating or geochemically
ambiguous, and how rapidly sulphidic minerals decompose in the presence of oxygen. To
identify the potential implications of acid drainage for a site detailed assessment is required of
the following issues:
• A baseline or the background receiving water quality conditions of the site / area?
• The presence of sulphide minerals or other acid forming components in the ore or waste
rock material. If present, detailed materials characterisation (eg. acid-base accounting,
kinetic tests).
• Acid budget for the site, possibly incorporating a site water balance.
• Requirements for site water discharge. How often, how much, when, and what are the water
quality parameters to be achieved?
Various types of both static and kinetic tests have been developed to assist with the
characterisation of acid generation potential.
2.1.1 Static Tests
Static tests are the first step in evaluation of acid drainage potential of various rock materials.
Current best practice static tests involve acid-base accounting or the Net Acid Producing
Potential or NAPP test, and the Net Acid Generation or NAG test. The objective of acid-base
accounting is to determine the balance between acid forming and acid consuming components
of geologic materials. The Maximum Potential Acidity (MPA) is determined by analysis for total
sulphur, which is assumed to be in the form of pyrite (FeS2). The NAPP is calculated by
subtracting the Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANC; determined by titration with acid) from the
MPA.
In order to avoid the need to determine the MPA and acid neutralising capacity separately, the
net acid generation or NAG test was developed. This test involves the addition of hydrogen
peroxide (normally unstabilised 30% H2O2 diluted 1:1 with deionised water) to a pulverised
geologic sample (normally 2.5 grams). If sulphide minerals are present, the peroxide reacts to
produce heat and acid, and this will react with available neutralising material. NAG tests are
sometimes preferred to the more time consuming NAPP tests as a first pass indication of acid
generating capacity due to their relative simplicity and lower cost.
2.1.2 Kinetic Tests
Kinetic tests simulate weathering and oxidation of rock material over time via exposure to
moisture and air. The tests can be used to provide an indication of oxidation rate, the time
period before the onset of acid generation, the rate of acid neutralisation and data on potential

6
metal release into acidic leachate. A variety of laboratory and field based kinetic tests have
been devised, and all require a longer time period and are more expensive than static tests.
2.2 Monitoring
Monitoring is a critical component of best practice management of acid mine drainage.
Identifying acid drainage or the likelihood of acid drainage at an early stage may provide
advance warning of more significant problems. This will enable pro-active control and possibly
treatment strategies to be adopted.
Key features of a monitoring programme include:
• monitoring of surface water and groundwater upstream and downstream of the mine
including the analysis of key acid drainage indicators such as pH, acidity, sulphate, iron,
aluminium, manganese.
• monitoring of seeps, and water and waste storages on the mine site for key acid drainage
indicators.
• routine testing of geological materials during mining to validate predicted acid generating
capacity.
Other monitoring strategies that may be applicable at sites with potentially severe acid drainage
include:
• temperature profiles through waste dumps to identify the presence or otherwise of
exothermic oxidation (the appearance of steam from waste dumps or hot spots on the waste
surface may be immediate indicators of exothermic acid producing reactions within a waste
dump);
• water flux or ingress through a waste dump; and
• oxygen diffusion rates through engineered covers on waste dumps and tailings ponds.
2.3 Minimisation and Control of Acid Generation
Minimising acid drainage requires restricting the availability of oxygen and moisture to
sulphides. Oxygen converts the sulphides to sulphates, and water facilitates the dissolution
and transport of the resulting sulphuric acid.
Control strategies are defined as those measures which are required to either limit the
formation of acidic products (ie. inhibiting sulphide oxidation), or minimise the dissolution and
mobilisation of these products by water (ie. limiting interaction with water).
Techniques that are commonly used for control include the following:
• Diversion / dilution
• Containment and evaporative disposal
• Waste encapsulation / covers

7
• Waste blending / segregation (selective handling)
• Waste submergence
Ideally, acid mine drainage control measures should be implemented pro-actively. This can be
assisted through prediction by characterising waste materials under conditions which simulate
site conditions. When such tests identify potential acid drainage risks, control options need to
be explored, and an Acid Drainage Management Plan (ADMP) established.
An environmental manager’s choice of control (and treatment) is a function of:
• the nature and extent of current and potential acid drainage problems (sulphide content,
type, distribution, reactivity, available neutralising material, water chemistry);
• the sensitivity of the receiving environment (environmental risk);
• existing natural amelioration factors (eg. high river flows, alkaline water, natural wetlands);
• the regulatory regime (discharge standards and compliance requirements, rehabilitation
requirements);
• climate (eg. site water balance, local hydrology);
• site logistics (eg. terrain considerations, availability of space, water storage capability);
• local natural resources (suitable for control and treatment measures); and
• economic resources / budgetary requirements.
The choice of control techniques is site specific, and multiple techniques are often employed.
Control techniques display varying success at different sites, and may be employed with or
without treatment methods.
2.3.1 Diversion
The diversion of unpolluted runoff away from acidic products or ponded acid drainage, or the
diversion of acid drainage from unpolluted water bodies is a fundamental control method. The
concept behind diversion is simply to minimise the volume of acidic leachate.
There are very few sites where diversion is not appropriate. Water diversion can provide
savings in both cost and space.
2.3.2 Dilution
In some instances, discharge of acid drainage into a local waterway with relatively high flow-
rates is regarded as a suitable control measure. The viability of this option is dependent on the
relative locations of discharge and compliance points, as well as local hydrological factors.

8
2.3.3 Selective Handling
Selective handling involves the location of waste rock material to minimise the generation of
acid drainage. Usually this involves handling acid generating waste and placing it in a location
which limits its exposure to air and water. It can also involve the blending or mixing of acid
neutralising and acid generating wastes to minimise acid release.
The costs of selective handling are complex to estimate and vary enormously depending on the
nature of the mining operation.
2.3.4 Barrier Formation
A common approach to controlling acid drainage is the formation of various types of barriers or
covers. The prime function of a barrier is to exclude oxygen and/or water.
Water Covers
In the simplest terms, a cover may be a layer of water. Sulphidic mine wastes are largely
unreactive when stored under water due to the reduced availability of oxygen. The
concentration of oxygen in natural waters is approximately 25,000 times lower than that found
in the atmosphere.
Flooding of underground or opencut workings is often an effective mechanism for submerging
sulphides and dramatically reducing sulphide oxidation. Backfilling of underground and
opencut workings with waste rock and/or tailings is often conducted in conjunction with flooding
as a method of placing water covers over sulphidic material. The backfilled material is
sometimes stabilised with the addition of quartz sand and binders such as fly-ash, various
cements or lime (ref. Helms and Heinrich, 1997), or may be re-disposed without amendment
(Lewis-Russ et al., 1997).
Mine flooding and engineered water covers should only be considered if the hydrogeology and
water balance of a site are well known and appropriate.
At the Kelian Gold Mine in Indonesia (PT Kelian Equatorial Mining) a dam was constructed
(Upper Nakan Dam) to store all potentially acid forming rock under water. The cost of
construction of this dam was US$ 15 million (Firth and Van der Linden, 1997).
Dry and Wet Soil Covers
A broad variety of soil-based wet and dry site covers have been developed for the control of
acid drainage from mine wastes. These range from simple clay barriers to complex, composite,
multi-layer, organic-bearing covers. The design of a soil cover is dependent on the climate of a
site (Swanson et al., 1997). Composite soil cover systems for wet sites typically consist of a
compacted layer covered by erosion protection and vegetation support layers. Capillary break
layers (ref. Swanson et al., 1997; Ricard et al., 1997) are sometimes installed beneath the
compacted layer, but are also used above for reducing evaporation from the compacted
material (ie. a moisture retention layer). The key aspects of a successful wet site cover are
promotion of runoff and maintenance of a high degree of saturation in the compacted layer.
These factors minimise oxygen diffusion and water infiltration into the waste material.
Dry site covers comprise a variety of geologic materials (eg. alluvium, topsoil, oxide rock) which
are designed to store relatively large volumes of infiltrating water for long enough to enable
evapotranspiration before it percolates into the mine waste (Swanson et al., 1997). With an

9
emphasis on promoting evapotranspiration, dry-site covers commonly incorporate extensive
vegetation support layers to enhance their store-and-release capacity.
To assist with the control of acid formation, alkaline amendments are added to the tops of some
covers to further stabilise the chemistry of the underlying wastes. Alkaline amendments include
fly-ash, cement kiln dust, cement stabilised fly-ash, lime neutralisation sludge, limestone,
dolomite, alkaline tailings and alkaline paper mill waste, and largely depend on local, low-cost
resources. They are often added to dry site covers where their presence may assist plant
growth by treating near surface acid generation.
Vegetation support horizons incorporate a range of organic additives to encourage plant
growth. Organic material may include forestry wastes (sawdust/wood-chips), sewage sludge,
animal manures, paper mill wastes, and municipal waste composts. Once again, the choice of
organic additives is generally a function of local resources, but care must be taken to
understand their potential impact on leachate quality. Another key benefit of organic-rich layers
is that they react with atmospheric oxygen (to produce CO2) and can dramatically lower oxygen
diffusion into mine wastes. Some organic materials provide additional benefits as capillary
barriers, alkalinity producing systems, reducing environments and moisture retention layers.
Shallow-rooted vegetation should be chosen for planting in wet site soil covers in order to
maintain the water saturated oxygen barrier, and deep-rooted varieties are more suited in dry
site covers to maximise evapotranspiration (Swanson et al., 1997).
Synthetic Barriers
Synthetic barriers comprising welded sheets of high density polyethylene (HDPE) are being
used at some sites to control sulphide oxidation and water infiltration. This is commonly an
expensive option with a limited life expectancy. Polymer-modified clay and grout barriers (eg.
fly-ash Portland cement mixture) have been employed to isolate acid forming rock from
groundwater. Such techniques can provide some success, but the costs need to be justified on
a case by case basis.
At the Kelian Mine a low grade ore stockpile and waste rock dump have been covered by
HDPE plastic costing US $1.5 million.
2.3.5 Chemical Control Methods
A variety of acid drainage control strategies, largely of a chemical nature include:
(i) Selective placement of acid generating and acid neutralising waste material;
(ii) Blending of neutralising material during disposal of waste rock or tailings;
(iii) Co-disposal of appropriate proportions of waste-rock and tailings;
(iv) In-situ alkaline amendment of sulphidic wastes (eg. Spotts et al., 1997);
(v) Addition of lime neutralisation sludge.
Many of these solutions need to be integrated with mining procedures, and are currently in
broad use. They are effective in minimising acid drainage in many situations. Neutralising
materials forming part of mine wastes generally offer the lowest cost solutions for controlling
acid drainage, and should be thoroughly utilised wherever possible.
2.3.6 Biological Control Methods

10
Bactericides are a group of chemicals (surfactants) that are used to kill bacteria catalysing the
conversion of ferrous to ferric iron, a process which accelerates the oxidation and dissolution of
pyrite. They do not provide permanent solutions to acid drainage but in certain applications (eg
temporary rock stockpiles) they may be used to delay the onset of acid drainage. In the US
coal industry they have been used during rehabilitation to assist in the establishment of a
vegetation cover prior to the onset of significant acid generation.
Bactericides are relatively expensive, and their use needs to be justified at each individual site.
3.0 Treatment of Acid Drainage
Treatment techniques are usually reactive rather than pro-active, and are generally designed
to:
(i) raise pH,
(ii) lower toxic metal concentrations (eg. precipitation, adsorption)
(iii) lower aqueous sulphate concentrations,
(iv) lower the toxicity / bioavailability of metals in solution (eg. oxidation, reduction)
(v) oxidise the solution (eg. Fe(II)-Fe(III), Mn(II)-Mn(IV), As(III)-As(V)),
(vi) reduce the solution (eg. SO4-H2S)
(vii) collect / dispose / isolate the metallic sludge generated.
Acid drainage control and treatment techniques can be broadly classified into physical,
chemical and biological, and those using combinations of these (refer Figure 2).
3.1 Dilution / Reaction
Due to a favourable location or climate, some sites have the option of treating their acid
drainage simply by dilution and/or reaction with nearby water resources. Some operations can
achieve their discharge standards by:
(i) releasing water only during periods of high rainfall or peak river flow,
(ii) releasing water into local waterways with significant natural buffering capacity (eg. a
carbonate terrain),
(iii) releasing water into estuarine or marine settings where bicarbonate buffering,
gypsum saturation and direct dilution have the effect of treating the acid drainage.
3.1.1 Concentration
In collaboration with chemical treatment methods, evaporative concentration of acidic drainage
can be an effective method of reducing the volumes of water to treat, and generally permits
lower cost treatment reagents (eg. limestone) to be used at least for partial treatment. This
strategy is of course climate dependent and will usually not be appropriate in a tropical setting.
3.2 Chemical Treatment Methods

11
3.2.1 Active Treatment
The most common method for treating acid drainage is via reaction with alkaline reagents /
amendments. A large variety of natural, by-product or manufactured alkaline reagents can be
used at different mine sites, depending on local availability and cost. The most cost effective,
and therefore the most commonly used reagents are the lime based reagents which include
quicklime (CaO), hydrated lime (CaOH), and limestone (CaCO3).
When treating acid drainage the choice of treatment reagent(s) and dispensing device needs to
be carefully considered to ensure cost effectiveness, technical suitability to the acid drainage
and desired treatment objectives (eg. post treatment metal concentrations, quantity of sludge
generated...etc).
Hydrated lime is the most used of the three lime based reagents in the treatment of acid
drainage. It is easily handled and suitable in high flow and acidity conditions. Extensive
mechanical mixing of hydrated lime in water is required because it is hydrophobic.
Quicklime is an extremely effective neutralising reagent because it is very reactive, however,
difficulties in handling and dispensing often limit its use.
Limestone or calcium carbonate can also be used in certain circumstances. It has the lowest
material cost and is safe and easy to handle. However, its use is limited due to its low solubility
and its tendency to develop an external coating. This is a key problem with treating acid
drainage. A number of reagents (including the limestone based reagents) form “rinds” or
“blankets” of precipitates which coat / blind reagent particles and inhibit complete reaction. Few
conventional dosing systems take this effect into account, and thus suffer from low efficiencies
of reagent use. Passive systems (below) are also prone to armouring reactions which have the
capacity to rapidly diminish alkalinity production, and most designs adopt steps to avoid metal
hydroxide precipitation. Any dispensing / mixing method which is able to address armouring
effects will improve reagent efficiency and therefore lower treatment costs, often significantly.
Another problem increasingly evident during chemical water treatment is the formation of strong
chemical gradients in bodies of treated water (ie. bodies deeper than 3-5 m). The development
of these gradients is associated with significant over treatment of some water bodies, and this
phenomenon appears to be infrequently recognised. Routine depth monitoring of water bodies
undergoing treatment will often be warranted (eg. pit lakes, tailings ponds, acid drainage
collection ponds).
A spectrum of small to large conventional, fixed neutralisation plants, high density sludge plants
(additional circuits for increasing the density of treatment precipitates), portable chemical
dispensing plants (ie. Neutra-Mills), portable or fixed, stream oxidation ± dosing systems (eg.
In-Line Systems) and in-stream dosing systems (Aquafix plants) are used.
Treatment of acid drainage is often not trivial with a number of mine sites operating in tropical
environments expending significant sums on treatment. One site, for example, uses
approximately 250 tonne of hydrated lime per day (usual cost of lime is approximately US $100
/ tonne, but may be as much as US $300 / tonne in remote locations when transport costs are
included).
Efficiency of reagent use is a key criteria in deciding the choice of treatment plant as reagent
costs are usually the most significant cost. Reagent efficiencies of less than 50% are not
uncommon with some type of reagents and treatment apparatus. Improving reagent efficiency
will often constitute a substantial saving in treatment costs.
Several other chemical methods not directly employing alkaline addition, but also important for
treating acid drainage are:

12
(i) Sulphide precipitation / reduction: soluble sulphide compounds such as NaS are
also used to facilitate the precipitation of toxic metal sulphides from acid drainage.
(ii) Physical and/or chemical oxidation, sometimes in conjunction with neutralisation:
conversion of aqueous Fe(II) to insoluble ferric hydroxide, aqueous Mn(II) to
insoluble Mn(III) hydroxides and oxides, and soluble As(III) to less toxic As(V) can
be achieved by oxidation.
(iii) Adsorption: metals can be adsorbed onto organic and inorganic surfaces.
Adsorption of Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn increases with increasing pH (Gerhardt, 1993).
Coagulants and flocculants are useful for removing an array of metals from solution.
(iv) Ion Exchange: toxic metals can substitute for harmless ions using natural or
synthetic zeolites, or a variety of synthetic polymeric resins.
(v) Electrochemistry: solvent extraction and electrowinning techniques can be applied
to solutions that would be regarded as typical acid drainage. Such techniques are
suited to those mine sites where cost recovery can justify implementation.
3.2.2 Passive Chemical Treatment
A growing number of passive treatment systems are available to environmental managers.
Most are based on low-cost reagents such as limestone. A range of passive systems include:
(i) Open Limestone Drains: uncovered drainage channels filled with aggregate
limestone. Their design recognises the effect of armouring reactions, and scales up
the volume of reagent on the assumption that very low proportions of limestone will
be available for dissolution (Ziemkiewicz et al., 1995).
(ii) Anoxic Limestone Drains (ALD): buried trenches of limestone aggregate designed
to exclude oxygen in order to maintain iron in a reduced (ferrous) and thereby
soluble state. Once pH has been adjusted and the drainage has exited from the
channel, controlled aeration permits oxidation, hydrolysis and precipitation.
(iii) Alkalinity Producing Systems (APS) or Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems
(SAPS): these systems represent a combination of ALD’s and an anaerobic reactor
(eg. constructed wetland or engineered reactor). In combination, these processes
promote increases in alkalinity using limestone, and avoid clogging of the drains by
reducing ferric iron to ferrous iron. While ALD’s attempt to exclude oxygen, APS’s
promote reduction via organic material and microbiological processes.
(iv) Limestone Ponds (LSP) and Reverse Alkalinity Producing Systems (RAPS): these
are concepts for treating acid drainage seeps or groundwater discharges by
creating a pond around the zone, and introducing limestone ± organic matter into
the pond.
(v) Hydro-Active Limestone Treatment (HALT): Water powered limestone fed mills
designed to increase the efficiency of using limestone for acid drainage treatment
The success of these passive systems generally depends on the absence or strict control of
dissolved oxygen, ferric iron and aluminium, in order to control metal hydroxide precipitation.
While this is often possible, especially at coal mines, these requirements tend to limit the
effective application of passive systems.

13
3.3 Biological Treatment Methods
Most biological / microbiological systems require the establishment and maintenance of
anaerobic conditions to permit the appropriate bacteria to flourish. Remediation is essentially
conducted by bacteria capable of reducing aqueous sulphate and generating bicarbonate
alkalinity. Biological treatment methods may be divided into the following categories:
(i) Wetlands: systems are generally anaerobic, organic-rich, water saturated
environments with a large water/air surface. They are commonly actively involved
in filtering, cation exchange, redox reactions, neutralisation reactions and complex
microbiological processes (eg. biosorption). They are generally regarded as being
quite effective in ameliorating low-medium strength and medium to low flow acid
drainage (eg. Skousen, 1995; Sobolewski, 1997), and are often usefully employed
in combination with other treatment systems. Limitations to wetlands include the
clogging of the substrate with precipitate sludges, difficulties in the treatment of
large flows and of obtaining suitable land on a minesite of sufficient size.
(ii) ARUM Cells (Acid Reduction Using Microbiology): involves an iron reduction or
(oxidation and) removal stage, followed by anaerobic microbial treatment
(reduction) and the establishment of a self sustaining organic supply to the
anaerobic cell (Kalin and Smith, 1997).
(iii) Bioremediation in a pit lake: trials are being conducted on the role of bacteria in
reducing acid and sulphate levels in largely static bodies of water. Insufficient
information is available to draw conclusions at present.
Although used widely in relation to surficial wetland systems, sulphate reducing processes
associated with organic substrates are essentially never used in the context of waste rock piles
and tailings dams. There appears to be significant scope for the application of passive low-cost
methods in these settings.
Biological acid drainage treatment methods provide attractive close-out solutions for many mine
sites, but often need to be coordinated with other control and sometimes treatment measures.
The application of wetlands for remediating low strength acidic drainage (ie. final polishing) is
well established, but the sustainability and value of wetland systems for long-term and
moderate strength acid drainage treatment will be under review for years to come.
3.4 Chemical & Biological Treatment Methods
Bioprocess technologies are being developed and tested at present. These rely upon the
production of H2S from the biological reduction of sulphate to immobilise toxic metals in acid
drainage. While using sulphate reducing bacteria, the processes often have discrete chemical
and biological components permitting full control of treatment and isolation of metal
concentrates, metal sludge and biomass. The proprietary Biosulphide process is discussed by
Rowley et al., 1997, and a consecutive hydroxide-sulphide process is discussed by Diaz, 1997.
4.0 Rehabilitation
Where a site with acid drainage is being rehabilitated a combination of prevention,
minimisation, control and treatment options are usually adopted. Where acid drainage has not
as yet developed prevention and minimisation techniques are employed. Where acid drainage
has developed, minimisation, control and treatment are employed.

14
In almost all circumstances the cost of removing acid generating waste as part of a
rehabilitation strategy is cost prohibitive. Reactive remedial measures will again usually focus
on reducing, preventing or at least minimising the oxidation of sulphides and the dissolution of
the oxidation products.
Acidity or low pH in soils can also be of concern. Low soil pH (below about 5.5 when measured
in water) can reduce the availability of some nutrients and cause aluminium and manganese
toxicity. Limestone can be added to assist in the amelioration (neutralisation) of the soil, but
this will not provide a lasting benefit to the soil unless the source of the acidity is no longer
present.
Where acid drainage is a site issue, it needs to be incorporated into rehabilitation and mine
decommissioning plans. However, sound prevention, minimisation and control strategies are
critical for limiting the need for expensive rehabilitation techniques.
5.0 Summary & Conclusions
Acid drainage is accepted as one of the most difficult and important environmental issues
confronting the mining industry, and therefore considerable resources have been marshalled
within the industry to establish best practice procedures under different management scenarios.
Currently, best practice environmental management of sulphidic mine wastes involves
integration of acid drainage prevention, minimisation and control into the mining process. It can
be summarised as the early characterisation and classification of the acid generating potential
of these materials, development of strategies to minimise the oxidation of sulphides, and where
acid drainage formation is unavoidable, the implementation of suitable long term control and
treatment technologies. In almost all circumstances, resources spent on prevention and
minimisation of acid drainage are returned many fold through lower control and treatment costs.
References
Atkins, R. J., Hay, D. and Robertson, J., 1997, Shallow water cover design methodology and
field verification. Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid
Rock Drainage, Vancouver, B. C., Canada, June, 1997, pg. 211-228.
Chermak, J. A. and Runnells, D. D., 1996, Self-sealing hardpan barriers to minimize infiltration
of water into sulfide-bearing overburden, ore and tailings piles. Unpublished report,
Shepherd Miller Incorporated, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Diaz, M. A., 1997, Consecutive hydroxide-sulphide precipitation treatment of acid rock
drainage. Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock
Drainage, Vancouver, B. C., Canada, June, 1997, pg. 1181-1193.
Environmental Protection Agency (Australia), 1995. Best Practice Environmental Management
in Mining Module - Managing Sulphidic Mine Wastes and Acid Drainage.
Firth, I. C. and Van der Linden, J., 1997, ARD control at P.T. Kelian Equatorial Mining.
Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
Vancouver, B. C., Canada, June, 1997, pg. 1231-1250.
Gerhadt, A. 1993. Review of Impact of Heavy Metals. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 66:289-
314.
Harries, J. Acid Mine Drainage in Australia - Its Extent and Potential Liability ERISS
publication, Darwin, Australia. Supervising Scientist Report 125.

15
Helms, W. and Heinrich, D. 1997, Development of backfill material for minimising acid mine
drainage generation in abandoned underground mines. Conference proceedings,
Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Vancouver, B. C., Canada,
June, 1997, pg. 1251-1266.
Kalin, M. and Smith, M. P., 1997, Microbial acid reduction in sediments - Concepts and
Application. Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid
Koehnken, L., 1997 Final Report. Mount Lyell Remediation Research and Demonstration
Program. Supervising Scientist Report 126, Supervising Scientist, Canberra,
Australia.
Lewis-Russ, A., Bronson, J., Lupo, J. F. and Long, B. G., 1997, Control of acid rock drainage
by pit backfilling. Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid
McGregor, R. G., Stegemann, J. A. and van der Sloot, H. A., 1997, Preliminary results of a field
study of a self-healing / self-sealing cover system. Conference proceedings, Fourth
International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Vancouver, B. C., Canada, June,
1997, pg. 1437-1450.
Ricard, J. F., Aubertin, M., Firlotte, F. W., Knapp, R., McMullen, J. and Julien, M., 1997, Design
and construction of a dry cover made of tailings for the closure of Les Terrains
Auriferes Site, Malartic, Quebec, Canada. Conference proceedings, Fourth
International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Vancouver, B. C., Canada, June,
1997, pg. 1515-1530.
Rowley, M. V., Richmond, B. C., Warkentin, D. D. and Sicotte, V., 1997, Site demonstration of
the biosulphide process at the former Britannia Mine. Conference proceedings,
June, 1997, pg. 1533-1547.
Skousen, J. G., 1995, Douglas abandoned mine land project. Chapter 26 of “Acid mine
drainage control and treatment”: Compiled by Skousen, J. G. and Ziemkiewicz, P.
F. West Virginia University and the National Mine Land Reclamation Center,
Morgantown, West Virginia; pg 231-241.
Skousen, J., Faulkner, B. and Sterner, P., 1995, Passive treatment systems and improvement
of water quality. Chapter 27 of “Acid mine drainage control and treatment”:
Compiled by Skousen, J. G. and Ziemkiewicz, P. F. West Virginia University and
the National Mine Land Reclamation Center, Morgantown, West Virginia; pg 243-
255.
Sobolewski, A., 1997, The capacity of natural wetlands to ameliorate water quality: A review of
case studies. Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid
Spotts, E., Schafer, W. M., Luckay, C. F. and Mitchell, T. S., 1997, Determination of runoff
metal loading from reclaimed and unreclaimed tailings. Conference proceedings,
June, 1997, pg. 1567-1577.
Swanson, D. A., Barbour, S. L. and Wilson, G. W., 1997, Dry-site versus wet-site cover design.
Conference proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
Vancouver, B. C., Canada, June, 1997, pg. 1597-1609.
Taylor, J. R., Weaver, T. R., McPhail, D. C. “Bear” and Murphy, N. C., 1996. Characterisation
and impact assessment of mine tailings in the King River system and delta,
Western Tasmania. ERISS publication, Darwin, Australia.
Taylor, J. R., Waring, C. L., Murphy, N. C. and Leake, M. J., 1997. An overview of acid mine
drainage control and treatment options including recent advances. In Proceedings
of the Third Australian Acid Mine Drainage Workshop. Darwin, 15-18 July 1997.
(Australian centre for Minesite Rehabilitation Research: Brisbane).
Ziemkiewicz, P., Skousen, J. and Lovett, R., 1995, Open limestone channels for treating acid
mine drainage: A new look at an old idea. Chapter 25 of “Acid mine drainage
control and treatment”: Compiled by Skousen, J. G. and Ziemkiewicz, P. F. West
Virginia University and the National Mine Land Reclamation Center, Morgantown,
West Virginia; pg 225-230.

Managing Acid Drainage at Mine Sites

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Managing Acid Drainage at Mine Sites

Similar a Managing Acid Drainage at Mine Sites (20)

Último

Último (20)

Managing Acid Drainage at Mine Sites